Slashdot Mirror


Paradise Papers Leak Reveals Apple's Secret Tax Bolthole (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BBC: The world's most profitable firm has a secretive new structure that would enable it to continue avoiding billions in taxes, the Paradise Papers show. They reveal how Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its controversial Irish tax practices by actively shopping around for a tax haven. It then moved the firm holding most of its untaxed offshore cash, now $252 billion, to the Channel Island of Jersey. Apple said the new structure had not lowered its taxes. It said it remained the world's largest taxpayer, paying about $35 billion in corporation tax over the past three years, that it had followed the law and its changes "did not reduce our tax payments in any country."

Leaked emails also make it clear that Apple wanted to keep the move secret. One email sent between senior partners at Appleby says: "For those of you who are not aware, Apple [officials] are extremely sensitive concerning publicity. They also expect the work that is being done for them only to be discussed amongst personnel who need to know." Apple chose Jersey, a UK Crown dependency that makes its own tax laws and which has a 0% corporate tax rate for foreign companies. Paradise Papers documents show Apple's two key Irish subsidiaries, Apple Operations International (AOI), believed to hold most of Apple's massive $252 billion overseas cash hoard, and Apple Sales International (ASI), were managed from Appleby's office in Jersey from the start of 2015 until early 2016. This would have enabled Apple to continue avoiding billions in tax around the world.
The report notes that Apple paid just $1.65 billion in taxes to foreign governments, despite making $44.7 billion outside the U.S. That's a tax rate of 3.7%, which is less than a sixth of the average rate of corporation tax in the world.

14 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can do this because... country laws allow it all over the world.

    I can't fucking stand Apple one bit.

    But I'm infinitely more annoyed that any such arrangements are legal, no matter which countries are involved in helping them do this, than anything else. That only happens because the people writing the laws are using the same tricks themselves.

    If governments wrote tax-laws properly, they wouldn't be losing out on such tax, no matter what arrangement Apple tried to use.

    1. Re:Sigh. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      My answer is "So what?"

      I try to take every deduction, every investment, every loophole I can that is legally available to me.

      I would expect no less from any other person or company.

      Hell, if the US would drop the corporate rate to something even nearly that low, I'll bet Apple and others would bring much of that money home.

      But if all of this is legal and it appears to be....then so what?

      Paying taxes is not a moral choice, it is a part of doing business.

      If you don't like companies or people using the current rules....make some changes, but until then, quit bitching about it.

      If YOU want to pay more tax than you legally have to...there is a nice section on the form where you can voluntarily pay additional over and above what you owe.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Sigh. by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Paying taxes is not a moral choice, it is a part of doing business.

      Paying taxes is the price that we have to pay for the right of living in a civilized society. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    3. Re:Sigh. by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, we get it, government is bad. Enjoy haggling with Fire Protection Corp about the cost of extinguishing a fire while your house burns down.

    4. Re:Sigh. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That still doesn't make paying taxes have anything to do with morality.
      It is a legal obligation, nothing more.

      If you can afford to pay taxes to maintain the system that permits you to profit, and you don't and it causes people to suffer (which is how it works) then yeah, there's a moral issue there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Sigh. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If governments wrote tax-laws properly, they wouldn't be losing out on such tax, no matter what arrangement Apple tried to use.

      Governments don't write tax laws - corporate lawyers at companies like Apple do. You see the problem now, right?

    6. Re:Sigh. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It is all made legal by the legislators bought and paid off by these big companies.

      You and I do not have enough money to use all these loop holes. They are designed to catch little fry like us and let big sharks go.

      If you don't get that point you never will.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not broadly disagreeing, but there's a 2 part issue here :

      The US is one of a very few countries that asserts taxation rights over foreign earnings of US corporations by effectively asserting if you are US owned - all company value is by definition created in the US. AND the US is not party to multi-lateral tax agreements - they insist on a series of bilateral agreements, which means they only have them with a limited number of countries (if such an agreement is in place, the tax they pay in say, Ireland, is a credit to the tax they pay in the US, so they aren't double taxed ). Because there's so few countries with bilateral tax arrangements with the US, most multinationals risk being taxed both in the US and the country where the revenue was earned.

      The company tax rate in the US is moderately high, so a lot of companies account for paying US tax on repatriating cash, but companies can effectively defer repatriating that cash indefinitely (at least for decades), so long as they have a capacity to pay. AND they can pretty much leverage that cash offshore to do things (pay foreign suppliers, fund bonds to raise income etc)

      Thats completely legal, but it means no government can do anything with the money - as no government has collected it yet - so whilst its technically deferral , it feel like avoidance, and in many ways is functionally indistinguishable from it ( schools and hospitals don't get built etc)

      There's 2 ways to fix it - either the US plays nice with a wider range of countries - like signing on to the OECD DTA agreement (really unlikely with a Trump presidency), OR it tries to preserve American Exceptionalism, and lowers the US tax rate for repatriation of offshore funds, The last one is a cop out, but Congress has done it a few times in the last 40 years.

      Its literally trillions of dollars held offshore.

      The

    8. Re:Sigh. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you're missing is that these laws don't have these "loopholes" by accident. This is the way it's supposed to be. They were bought and paid for years ago by the likes of Halliburton, Exxon, Arthur Anderson (Sorry... Accenture), Bechtel, the Koch brothers, and the like. The only reason that DC have their panties in a wad about Apple's, Google's, or Amazon's taxes... and are dragging their names through the mud in the propaganda campaigns that the public is eating up... is that they're not the ones who paid for the laws. They were just clever enough to realize that, once on the books, the laws apply to everyone and not just the companies who bought them. And if Congress were to change the laws, the original purchasers would scream bloody murder and have the offending reps and senators replaced.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    9. Re:Sigh. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Breaking the law is a moral issue. Paying taxes is not.

      You literally could not be more wrong. Legality and morality have never been well-aligned, although there have certainly been many efforts to force some extremely immoral moral codes via the law.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:"extremely sensitive concerning publicity" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But these activities are not illegal, just immoral - smudging the actors a little bit.

    Paying taxes is neither moral or immoral....it is just something you have to do to help fund government.

    You are only obligated to pay what you legally owe.

    This is not an action that has morality anywhere in the equation.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. Re:"extremely sensitive concerning publicity" by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it's not.
    Those are big words for "lying through omission" or rather "cheating taxes".

    But these activities are not illegal, just immoral - smudging the actors a little bit.

    That is what they said last time, which was since proven to be illegal....

    So stop defending them. They are serial tax frauds, and I don't trust their new scheme anymore than the old one.. The one proven to be fraudulent.

  4. Re:"extremely sensitive concerning publicity" by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Paying taxes IS moral. If some douchebag finds and exploits a loophole (like Trump, who actually had segments of the tax code created just to stop his accounting BS back in the 80's and 90's), that is taking money out of MY pocket. Wealthy assholes dodging taxes means it's left to everyone else to make up the shortfall, thus they are effectively stealing from everyone else.

    Your argument reminds me of what lawful evil characters use in D&D. Laws without morality will always be exploited, and that is exactly what these rich assholes do.

    --
    ~X~
  5. Re:"extremely sensitive concerning publicity" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The morality is in spending not inconsiderable amounts of money finding ways to subvert the clear intention of the tax law. Most people don't have that option, and those that do reduce their own tax burden at the expense of those people.

    Just because it is technically legal doesn't make it morally acceptable to shirk your responsibilities while enjoying the massive benefits of being able to operate in those countries.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC